this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
43 points (71.3% liked)

Lemmy.world Support

3292 readers
35 users here now

Lemmy.world Support

Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.

This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.

This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.

To open a support ticket Static Badge


You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email [email protected] (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.


Follow us for server news 🐘

Outages 🔥

https://status.lemmy.world



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
43
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/support
 

https://lemmy.world/c/christians

This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles

Rule 8 of this community is in clear breach of the first goal from the lemmy/mastodon.world code of conduct

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kabe 41 points 2 years ago (5 children)

To play devil's advocate (pun not intended), this community poses an interesting quandary.

When seen in context, their rules do clearly prohibit any hate speech against the LGBTQ+ community:

Rule #5: Remember that we are all fellow image-bearers. We may disagree with people, but we are never to tear down another person’s inherent dignity and value as someone made in the image of God (Imago Dei). This includes those in the LGBTQ+ community. They need Jesus, too, just like we do, and we can’t say we represent Him while we tear down the works of His hands.

Rule #6: Banned subjects include ... Anything calling for direct/indirect violence against any individual or group, including LGBTQ+ individuals or groups; ...

Rule #8: This community does not affirm practiced LGBTQ+ lifestyles, with the exception of the ace/aroace (asexual/aromatic-asexual) lifestyle in certain contexts. However, abuse towards members of the LGBTQ+ community will not be tolerated. Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed; however, sincere questions and discourse about LGTBQ+issues are permitted.

I'd be interested to see the admin's ruling in this case.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 2 years ago

That's the ol' "hate the sin love the sinner" shtick. It tries to separate homosexuality (the "sin") from homosexuals (the "sinner"). If only they could stop sinning (stop being gay) they would of course be welcome!

Its not just excluding them from church/christian communities, its the theological basis for conversion camps and the like.

[–] yowhat 17 points 2 years ago

Mmm aromatic asexual

[–] TheSpookiestUser 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I would think specifically not allowing "pro-LGBTQ+ content" is being pretty bigoted. Just because it is a religious belief does not mean it can't also be bigoted.

~~If this little "loophole" is enough to allow this kind of thing to stay on this instance, I would be worried. But I'll wait and see what the admins have to say about it.~~ Resolved: https://lemmy.world/comment/1455537

[–] kabe 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think that would depend on what "Pro-LGBTQ+ content" means. It's quite a vague term. Does it refer to posts, discussion topics, or what?

They do follow up by saying that serious discussion about LGBTQ+ issues is acceptable, so the fact that are open to discussion, in theory, could be a point in their defense.

[–] TheSpookiestUser 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Community's gone now, so it's a moot point, but:

Assume they allow casual images. Someone posts an image of a pride celebration out front of a church. It's removed. Is this not obviously bigoted?

[–] rist097 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Are you giving an example of a real situation or are you just imagining? There is a big difference.

We cannot ban them because you think they would remove a post like that

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why assume anything? To strawman?

[–] TheSpookiestUser 5 points 2 years ago

No, to brainstorm a point, seeing as the community has now been banned and thus I have no idea what specific content they allowed outside the rule snippets posted here. Problem's resolved, we're done.

[–] lemmyphantom 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thanks for posting their rules. Very helpful and informative

[–] Mr_Blott 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm just here to find out what flavour an aromatic-asexual is

[–] TheSpookiestUser 4 points 2 years ago

Garlic bread, I think

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I was going to say something pretty similar to what you were.

I'm the last one to generally defend religious people, but are they actually being bigoted?

There's a pretty large difference between not affirming something and attacking something and frankly flipping through the community I didn't see either of those things occurring.

It sounds like the original poster just doesn't like the rule itself.

[–] Ghostalmedia 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What if it was race? What if they said “this community doesn’t affirm black lifestyles.”

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is not like we live in society where everyone is always welcome.

"What if it was Russians?" (aha we forbade them long time ago), Chinese (them too), native Americans (we killed them off), what is they are from some poor country... Some of those russians and Chinese are lgbt+, what about them? Migrants? no way.

There are always limits if you don't see them you should work on your sensibility (or probably information source)

They have some rules, it is on us all (not only admins) to assess if those rules align with this server or they should make their own instance (or go to known conservative instance).

I don't even want to look at their community (i am ignorant of all religions) if they just don't want some content it is ok with me, if they are hateful and share hate content and contet against lgbt people then delete them.

[–] TheSpookiestUser 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Discrimination against Russians, Chinese, or Native Americans based on their demographic is also unacceptable. That it once was doesn't make it ok now.

[–] rist097 -1 points 2 years ago

I think against Republicans is fine right?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean, we could play the game "what if they set a thing they didn't say" all day long.

What if they said shoes go on your hands?

[–] TheSpookiestUser 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Would it be unacceptable if it described another demographic, is what they're asking.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

100% this… race and sexuality are both pretty similar: things that people just are and can’t change about themselves

to say they’re not the same is… well, it’s not wrong, however they’re comparable in this context. if you say it’s not the same thing, you’re either arguing in bad faith or you made the exact point we were trying to: the only reason 1 is acceptable and the other is not doesn’t stand on logical foundations

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Pro-LGBTQ+ content is not allowed

That sounds pretty intolerant to me. How else do you define a bigot?

[–] remotelove 4 points 2 years ago

A jackass.

Whelp! I am off to post a Christians for LGBTQ+ meme over there..

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'd say that sounds more like a circlejerk than intolerance but that sounds pretty gay so is probably not allowed there either.

[–] TheSpookiestUser 7 points 2 years ago

Those things often go hand in hand

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

An intolerant circlejerk.